Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Cape Cod Weighs Big-Ticket Pollution Solutions

News Feed
Friday, May 24, 2024

This story was co-published with WBUR in Boston and produced with assistance from the Pulitzer Center. Read WBUR’s coverage of efforts to improve Cape Cod’s water pollution, including a “pee-cycling” project being considered by one innovative town. And check out a documentary short exploring these issues that was co-produced by WBUR and Scientific American.[CLIP: Theme music]Rachel Feltman: Cape Cod’s ponds and bays have suffered from decades of pollution. But scientific detective work has finally pinpointed the worst culprit: human urine. When household septic systems flush nitrogen and other nutrients into the water, they provide an all-you-can-eat buffet for algae blooms. More algae means less sunlight and oxygen for other marine life, which means trouble for the people of Cape Cod.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.For Science Quickly, I’m Rachel Feltman. Today we’re bringing you the second installment in our three-part Fascination series on Cape Cod’s yellow tide. In this episode WBUR environmental correspondent Barbara Moran looks at some of the big-ticket pollution solutions up for consideration—and unpacks why they’re so controversial.So without further ado, here’s part two: “Sticker Shock.”[CLIP: Gerard Martin speaks at a Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) hearing: “All right, excuse me, everybody, I think we’re gonna get going.”]Barbara Moran: Starting in late 2022 and continuing into the next year, concerned residents gathered for a series of public meetings with representatives from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. The residents were there to share their thoughts.[CLIP: Martin continues to speak at the hearing: “The hearing is being recorded and conducted in a hybrid format.”]Moran: The state was proposing new rules that would require communities to reduce their nitrogen pollution. In some places that meant people would potentially have to install new $35,000 septic systems. Here’s what Frank King of Brewster, Massachusetts, had to say about that.[CLIP: Frank King speaks at the MassDEP hearing: “If that is correct, you are looking at a massive protest on the scale of another Boston Tea Party.”][CLIP: Chris Shanahan speaks at the MassDEP hearing: “Thirty or thirty-five thousand dollars a year? That’s a complete misrepresentation.”]Moran: That’s Chris Shanahan of Falmouth, Massachusetts.[CLIP: Shanahan continues to speak at the hearing: “You can buy a system for that. You gotta maintain it. You gotta fix parts. It just never ends. So lifetime expense is more like eighty or a hundred thousand over 30 years.”][CLIP: Joan Hutchings speaks at the MassDEP hearing: “I’m not somebody that has a McMansion. I’ve got a three-bedroom home that’s been in my family for a bazillion years.”]Moran: Joan Hutchings of North Truro, Massachusetts. She said her town already made her upgrade her septic system.[CLIP: Hutchings continues to speak at the hearing: “Now the state’s gonna have me do something else? I don’t know, I might put an outhouse out back—seriously.”]Moran: People are concerned about the cost, as you heard. But they’re also concerned about whether these new systems even work. Can they actually prevent water pollution? I wondered the same thing. So I went to see an expert.Brian Baumgaertel: My name is Brian Baumgaertel. I’m the director of the Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test Center.Moran: You met Brian briefly in Episode One. Now we’re on his home turf: a two-and-a-half acre outdoor laboratory on Cape Cod known as MASSTC.Brian’s team is on a mission to find the best septic systems in the world—and it’s not a job for the squeamish.[CLIP: Sound of wastewater channel]Moran (tape): All right, so I’m looking into this hole, and there’s, like, water pouring in and some scummy stuff floating around there.Baumgaertel: Yeah, that’s the raw wastewater coming in from Joint Base Cape Cod. And it doesn’t look like what most people would think of when—you know, when you’re thinking of wastewater, you think it’s pretty disgusting. I—you know, maybe I’ve just gotten so used to it. I don’t know.Moran (tape): It is a little disgusting. [Laughs]Baumgaertel: It’s got kind of a smell. You know, it’s one of the less glorious parts of MASSTC, but it’s a necessity. [Laughs] It’s brown gold, brown gold for us.Moran: MASSTC uses that brown gold to test prototype septic systems from all over the world. I ask Brian to show me one—although it’s hard to see much at the facility.Baumgaertel: A lot of what we do here is underground because of course, for the most part, septic systems in homes would be underground.Moran: Brian walks over to a grassy mound that looks weirdly like a burial site—which it is, actually. He says that buried underneath our feet is a new kind of septic system that removes nitrogen from wastewater.Here’s how it works: Wastewater flows into a tank, and all the solid stuff sinks to the bottom. The liquid left floating on top includes our pee, which is rich in nitrogen, phosphorus and other nutrients. This liquid flows out of the tank …Baumgaertel: And then flows into the actual unit itself …Moran (tape): Another tank that’s under our feet.Baumgaertel: Yep, yep. There’s another tank that’s about 12 feet long right here.Moran (tape): Okay.Baumgaertel: And inside that tank are a number of compartments.Moran: The compartments contain limestone rocks and wood chips. These ingredients create a breeding ground for bacteria that eat nitrogen. They convert it into harmless nitrogen gas before it gets into the groundwater.Other systems remove nitrogen in different ways. Brian and his team test the water coming out of each system to see how well it works. And he says this one has been working pretty well.Baumgaertel: So far the data look very encouraging. Every day we get a little bit more data, we get a little bit more confidence that the technology can work.[CLIP: “We Are Giants,” by Silver Maple]Moran: Others are also heartened by the data, including Zenas Crocker, who goes by Zee. He’s executive director of the nonprofit Barnstable Clean Water Coalition.Zenas Crocker: And this system is so successful that in the data that we’re seeing now, it will remove between 95 and 97 percent of nitrogen going into the groundwater.Moran: Zee’s group was so impressed with how well these systems remove nitrogen that it launched a pilot project. The group is installing more than a dozen in a neighborhood by Shubael Pond in Barnstable, Massachusetts—including one when I visited last September.[CLIP: Sound of chains being attached to a tank, followed by it being lifted]Moran: As we watch, a crane operator uses chains to lift a concrete tank and lower it into a hole in the ground.[CLIP: Sound of the tank being lowered and men talking]Moran: Zee’s group is working with the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Geological Survey to monitor how well the new systems keep nitrogen out of the groundwater.Crocker: We chose this location in particular because these are all small lots. We’re also in a working-class community. Generally we’re looking at full-time residents here and people who really can’t afford, necessarily, to upgrade their septic systems.Moran: The Barnstable Clean Water Coalition paid to install the systems in this neighborhood; the homeowners paid nothing—which won’t be an option for the whole cape.But there is another approach to stopping wastewater pollution: switching from septic tanks to sewage pipes, which would bring the waste to a treatment plant. And that’s what Barnstable is doing in other parts of the town.I went to Barnstable’s town hall to meet the guy in charge.Moran (tape): Hi, how’re you doing? I have a nine o’clock interview with Mark Ells.Receptionist: Okay, sure, he’ll be right with you.Moran: Mark Ells is Barnstable’s town manager.Mark Ells: We’ve seen a significant deterioration of our bays to the point where we don’t have shellfish, we don’t have finfish. So we want to make sure that we put in place solutions that help us to address not only what we know today but what we’re anticipating tomorrow.Moran: Barnstable is the largest town on the cape, and parts are pretty urban, with houses and commercial buildings relatively close together. In places like this, sewer systems are a practical and cost-effective choice.So the town has begun a massive expansion of its sewer system, planning to extend service to almost 12,000 properties.[CLIP: “Let There Be Rain,” by Silver Maple]It’ll take 30 years and cost more than $1 billion. The town got local, state and federal funding to help cover the expansion costs. But homeowners will still have to pay.First there’s a town assessment of up to $10,000. Then homeowners have to pay to get their house hooked up to the sewer line and pay for someone to deal with their old septic tank. And then they’ll have a monthly sewer bill. The final cost, spread over decades, is probably in the range of $20,000 to $30,000—or more—per house.[CLIP: Construction sounds]Moran: And there’s another cost to installing sewer lines: seemingly constant roadwork and traffic jams.One day last fall cars crawled along as superintendent Mike Donovan’s crew dug up the main road into Barnstable.Moran (tape): Is this going to be, like, what your company does for, like, the next three decades?Mike Donovan: We—well, hopefully, yeah. That’s what we do for a living. We’re installing sewer all over the cape right now.Moran: But even this ambitious, expensive sewer expansion will take decades to reach some neighborhoods in Barnstable.Pat Uhlman lives across the street from Shubael Pond. And she’s seen it turn green with toxic algae. She says a few decades is too long to keep polluting the water.Pat Uhlman: If we don’t start cleaning it up now, you know, you might not even want to walk down by that pond by then.Moran: Luckily Pat is part of the neighborhood pilot project that got new septic systems installed for free. She says she understands that other homeowners are feeling sticker shock, but the pollution has to stop.Uhlman: The cape economy is still people coming here in the summer. So if they can’t swim in our ponds, they can’t swim in our ocean, they can’t boat, there’s not gonna be any reason for them to come here.[CLIP: Theme music]Moran: There may be another solution, a cheaper one. It won’t solve all the cape’s water problems, but it could help—a lot. We’ll talk about that next week in the final part of this Scientific American–WBUR Fascination miniseries.Feltman: Thanks for listening. Tune in next Friday for the final installment in this miniseries—which, spoiler alert, involves a little something called “pee-cycling.” You don’t want to miss it.Can’t wait for next Friday to get here? Don’t worry. We are taking Monday off for Memorial Day, but we’ll be back in your feed on Wednesday with some tips for protecting wildlife from the comfort of your own backyard.This series is a co-production of WBUR and Scientific American. It’s reported and hosted by WBUR’s Barbara Moran.Science Quickly is produced by Jeff DelViscio, Kelso Harper, Madison Goldberg and Rachel Feltman. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-checked this series, and Duy Linh Tu and Sebastian Tuinder contributed reporting and sound. WBUR’s Kathleen Masterson edited this series. Additional funding was provided by the Pulitzer Center.For Scientific American’s Science Quickly, I’m Rachel Feltman.

Toxic algal blooms are forcing Cape Cod communities to consider expensive sewer and septic system projects.

This story was co-published with WBUR in Boston and produced with assistance from the Pulitzer Center. Read WBUR’s coverage of efforts to improve Cape Cod’s water pollution, including a “pee-cycling” project being considered by one innovative town. And check out a documentary short exploring these issues that was co-produced by WBUR and Scientific American.

[CLIP: Theme music]

Rachel Feltman: Cape Cod’s ponds and bays have suffered from decades of pollution. But scientific detective work has finally pinpointed the worst culprit: human urine. When household septic systems flush nitrogen and other nutrients into the water, they provide an all-you-can-eat buffet for algae blooms. More algae means less sunlight and oxygen for other marine life, which means trouble for the people of Cape Cod.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


For Science Quickly, I’m Rachel Feltman. Today we’re bringing you the second installment in our three-part Fascination series on Cape Cod’s yellow tide. In this episode WBUR environmental correspondent Barbara Moran looks at some of the big-ticket pollution solutions up for consideration—and unpacks why they’re so controversial.

So without further ado, here’s part two: “Sticker Shock.”

[CLIP: Gerard Martin speaks at a Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) hearing: “All right, excuse me, everybody, I think we’re gonna get going.”]

Barbara Moran: Starting in late 2022 and continuing into the next year, concerned residents gathered for a series of public meetings with representatives from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. The residents were there to share their thoughts.

[CLIP: Martin continues to speak at the hearing: “The hearing is being recorded and conducted in a hybrid format.”]

Moran: The state was proposing new rules that would require communities to reduce their nitrogen pollution. In some places that meant people would potentially have to install new $35,000 septic systems. Here’s what Frank King of Brewster, Massachusetts, had to say about that.

[CLIP: Frank King speaks at the MassDEP hearing: “If that is correct, you are looking at a massive protest on the scale of another Boston Tea Party.”]

[CLIP: Chris Shanahan speaks at the MassDEP hearing: “Thirty or thirty-five thousand dollars a year? That’s a complete misrepresentation.”]

Moran: That’s Chris Shanahan of Falmouth, Massachusetts.

[CLIP: Shanahan continues to speak at the hearing: “You can buy a system for that. You gotta maintain it. You gotta fix parts. It just never ends. So lifetime expense is more like eighty or a hundred thousand over 30 years.”]

[CLIP: Joan Hutchings speaks at the MassDEP hearing: “I’m not somebody that has a McMansion. I’ve got a three-bedroom home that’s been in my family for a bazillion years.”]

Moran: Joan Hutchings of North Truro, Massachusetts. She said her town already made her upgrade her septic system.

[CLIP: Hutchings continues to speak at the hearing: “Now the state’s gonna have me do something else? I don’t know, I might put an outhouse out back—seriously.”]

Moran: People are concerned about the cost, as you heard. But they’re also concerned about whether these new systems even work. Can they actually prevent water pollution? I wondered the same thing. So I went to see an expert.

Brian Baumgaertel: My name is Brian Baumgaertel. I’m the director of the Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test Center.

Moran: You met Brian briefly in Episode One. Now we’re on his home turf: a two-and-a-half acre outdoor laboratory on Cape Cod known as MASSTC.

Brian’s team is on a mission to find the best septic systems in the world—and it’s not a job for the squeamish.

[CLIP: Sound of wastewater channel]

Moran (tape): All right, so I’m looking into this hole, and there’s, like, water pouring in and some scummy stuff floating around there.

Baumgaertel: Yeah, that’s the raw wastewater coming in from Joint Base Cape Cod. And it doesn’t look like what most people would think of when—you know, when you’re thinking of wastewater, you think it’s pretty disgusting. I—you know, maybe I’ve just gotten so used to it. I don’t know.

Moran (tape): It is a little disgusting. [Laughs]

Baumgaertel: It’s got kind of a smell. You know, it’s one of the less glorious parts of MASSTC, but it’s a necessity. [Laughs] It’s brown gold, brown gold for us.

Moran: MASSTC uses that brown gold to test prototype septic systems from all over the world. I ask Brian to show me one—although it’s hard to see much at the facility.

Baumgaertel: A lot of what we do here is underground because of course, for the most part, septic systems in homes would be underground.

Moran: Brian walks over to a grassy mound that looks weirdly like a burial site—which it is, actually. He says that buried underneath our feet is a new kind of septic system that removes nitrogen from wastewater.

Here’s how it works: Wastewater flows into a tank, and all the solid stuff sinks to the bottom. The liquid left floating on top includes our pee, which is rich in nitrogen, phosphorus and other nutrients. This liquid flows out of the tank …

Baumgaertel: And then flows into the actual unit itself …

Moran (tape): Another tank that’s under our feet.

Baumgaertel: Yep, yep. There’s another tank that’s about 12 feet long right here.

Moran (tape): Okay.

Baumgaertel: And inside that tank are a number of compartments.

Moran: The compartments contain limestone rocks and wood chips. These ingredients create a breeding ground for bacteria that eat nitrogen. They convert it into harmless nitrogen gas before it gets into the groundwater.

Other systems remove nitrogen in different ways. Brian and his team test the water coming out of each system to see how well it works. And he says this one has been working pretty well.

Baumgaertel: So far the data look very encouraging. Every day we get a little bit more data, we get a little bit more confidence that the technology can work.

[CLIP: “We Are Giants,” by Silver Maple]

Moran: Others are also heartened by the data, including Zenas Crocker, who goes by Zee. He’s executive director of the nonprofit Barnstable Clean Water Coalition.

Zenas Crocker: And this system is so successful that in the data that we’re seeing now, it will remove between 95 and 97 percent of nitrogen going into the groundwater.

Moran: Zee’s group was so impressed with how well these systems remove nitrogen that it launched a pilot project. The group is installing more than a dozen in a neighborhood by Shubael Pond in Barnstable, Massachusetts—including one when I visited last September.

[CLIP: Sound of chains being attached to a tank, followed by it being lifted]

Moran: As we watch, a crane operator uses chains to lift a concrete tank and lower it into a hole in the ground.

[CLIP: Sound of the tank being lowered and men talking]

Moran: Zee’s group is working with the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Geological Survey to monitor how well the new systems keep nitrogen out of the groundwater.

Crocker: We chose this location in particular because these are all small lots. We’re also in a working-class community. Generally we’re looking at full-time residents here and people who really can’t afford, necessarily, to upgrade their septic systems.

Moran: The Barnstable Clean Water Coalition paid to install the systems in this neighborhood; the homeowners paid nothing—which won’t be an option for the whole cape.

But there is another approach to stopping wastewater pollution: switching from septic tanks to sewage pipes, which would bring the waste to a treatment plant. And that’s what Barnstable is doing in other parts of the town.

I went to Barnstable’s town hall to meet the guy in charge.

Moran (tape): Hi, how’re you doing? I have a nine o’clock interview with Mark Ells.

Receptionist: Okay, sure, he’ll be right with you.

Moran: Mark Ells is Barnstable’s town manager.

Mark Ells: We’ve seen a significant deterioration of our bays to the point where we don’t have shellfish, we don’t have finfish. So we want to make sure that we put in place solutions that help us to address not only what we know today but what we’re anticipating tomorrow.

Moran: Barnstable is the largest town on the cape, and parts are pretty urban, with houses and commercial buildings relatively close together. In places like this, sewer systems are a practical and cost-effective choice.

So the town has begun a massive expansion of its sewer system, planning to extend service to almost 12,000 properties.

[CLIP: “Let There Be Rain,” by Silver Maple]

It’ll take 30 years and cost more than $1 billion. The town got local, state and federal funding to help cover the expansion costs. But homeowners will still have to pay.

First there’s a town assessment of up to $10,000. Then homeowners have to pay to get their house hooked up to the sewer line and pay for someone to deal with their old septic tank. And then they’ll have a monthly sewer bill. The final cost, spread over decades, is probably in the range of $20,000 to $30,000—or more—per house.

[CLIP: Construction sounds]

Moran: And there’s another cost to installing sewer lines: seemingly constant roadwork and traffic jams.

One day last fall cars crawled along as superintendent Mike Donovan’s crew dug up the main road into Barnstable.

Moran (tape): Is this going to be, like, what your company does for, like, the next three decades?

Mike Donovan: We—well, hopefully, yeah. That’s what we do for a living. We’re installing sewer all over the cape right now.

Moran: But even this ambitious, expensive sewer expansion will take decades to reach some neighborhoods in Barnstable.

Pat Uhlman lives across the street from Shubael Pond. And she’s seen it turn green with toxic algae. She says a few decades is too long to keep polluting the water.

Pat Uhlman: If we don’t start cleaning it up now, you know, you might not even want to walk down by that pond by then.

Moran: Luckily Pat is part of the neighborhood pilot project that got new septic systems installed for free. She says she understands that other homeowners are feeling sticker shock, but the pollution has to stop.

Uhlman: The cape economy is still people coming here in the summer. So if they can’t swim in our ponds, they can’t swim in our ocean, they can’t boat, there’s not gonna be any reason for them to come here.

[CLIP: Theme music]

Moran: There may be another solution, a cheaper one. It won’t solve all the cape’s water problems, but it could help—a lot. We’ll talk about that next week in the final part of this Scientific American–WBUR Fascination miniseries.

Feltman: Thanks for listening. Tune in next Friday for the final installment in this miniseries—which, spoiler alert, involves a little something called “pee-cycling.” You don’t want to miss it.

Can’t wait for next Friday to get here? Don’t worry. We are taking Monday off for Memorial Day, but we’ll be back in your feed on Wednesday with some tips for protecting wildlife from the comfort of your own backyard.

This series is a co-production of WBUR and Scientific American. It’s reported and hosted by WBUR’s Barbara Moran.

Science Quickly is produced by Jeff DelViscio, Kelso Harper, Madison Goldberg and Rachel Feltman. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-checked this series, and Duy Linh Tu and Sebastian Tuinder contributed reporting and sound. WBUR’s Kathleen Masterson edited this series. Additional funding was provided by the Pulitzer Center.

For Scientific American’s Science Quickly, I’m Rachel Feltman.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

This Pennsylvania settlement could set the standard for preventing tiny plastic pellet pollution

A company agreed to install technology to watch for the tiny plastic pellets.

When Heather Hulton VanTassel went looking for plastic pellets in the Ohio River in 2021, she was simply trying to establish a baseline level of contamination. A new plastics facility was being constructed nearby, and she wanted to be able to compare the prevalence of pellets — known as “nurdles” — before and after it went into operation. The “before” number would probably be low, she thought. What she and her co-workers found, however, exceeded her expectations. “We were really shocked at the numbers we were seeing,” she told Grist.  VanTassel is the executive director of Three Rivers Waterkeeper, a nonprofit that protects the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio rivers in southwestern Pennsylvania. As she and her team went about testing the river four years ago, hundreds of nurdles were coming up in each sample they pulled with their handheld trawls, a device about the size of a large shoebox. And the plastic pieces were tiny — even more so than the 5 millimeter nurdles she was used to. She had to add coffee filters to her catchment device to keep the particles from slipping through its sieves. VanTassel’s team kept following the pellets upstream, trawl after trawl, until they eventually reached the Ohio River’s confluence with Raccoon Creek, a popular area for swimming and fishing. That’s where they found the source. An industrial stormwater pipe was transporting pellets from a Styropek plastics facility and releasing them directly into the creek. The water testers could see them flowing out “all over the vegetation,” VanTassel said, and deposited in the soil just above the water line. That finding became the catalyst for a legal battle that has just reached its conclusion. Three Rivers Waterkeeper and the nonprofit PennEnvironment reached a landmark settlement agreement with Styropek earlier this month, following a lawsuit they filed against the company in 2023 over its contamination of the Ohio River watershed. The agreement, which also resolves a violation notice from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, requires Styropek to pay $2.6 million to remediate its plastic pollution, and to fund clean water projects across the state. But what makes the settlement effective, according to the plaintiffs, is not this initial penalty. It’s a requirement that Styropek must install technology to detect the release of any more plastic pellets from its facility in Monaca, Pennsylvania. If the technology finds even a single nurdle in the facility’s stormwater outfalls, the company will have to pay up.  David Masur, PennEnvironment’s executive director, said the agreement should become “a model and a blueprint” for regulators and the plastics industry. “I think they’ll have a hard time saying rationally why they shouldn’t do it [monitor their nurdle pollution] after a case like this, where the regulators and the industry are saying, ‘We agree it’s possible.’”  Nurdles are the precursors to plastic products. Manufacturers melt them down so they can be shaped into ink pens, disposable cups, or any number of other items. A water bottle, for context, is estimated to be made of about 1,000 nurdles. Styropek’s nurdles in Raccoon Creek were made of expandable polystyrene — a type of plastic that has been banned in many jurisdictions, due to its nonrecyclability and tendency to break into hazardous microplastics — destined to become things like packing peanuts, insulation for coolers, and foamy to-go containers. The company claims to be the largest expandable polystyrene producer “in the American continent.” Due to their tininess, ranging from the size of a pinhead to that of a nubbin on a Lego piece, nurdles are liable to escape into the environment. Spills often occur during transportation — these have been documented off the coasts of Sri Lanka, South Africa, Louisiana, and in many other places — but effluent from plastic production and processing facilities is also a significant pollution source.  Once in the environment, nurdles and the fragments that break off them may get eaten by birds and marine animals, causing plastic to accumulate up the food chain as larger critters eat smaller ones. Plastic particles are associated with a range of health problems in both humans and other animals, including heart disease and immune system dysfunction, though it’s not yet clear whether these are due to the leaching of plastics’ inherent chemical additives or the tendency of other pollutants to glom onto plastic particles, or perhaps some other factor. What’s the connection between plastics and climate change?Plastics are made from fossil fuels and cause greenhouse gas emissions at every stage of their lifespan, including during the extraction of oil and gas, during processing at petrochemical refineries, and upon disposal — especially if they’re incinerated. If the plastics industry were a country, it would have the world’s fourth-largest climate footprint, based on data published last year by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Research suggests that plastics are responsible for about 4 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. But this is likely an underestimate due to significant data gaps: Most countries lack greenhouse gas information on their plastics use and disposal, and the data that is available tends to focus on plastic production and specific disposal methods. Scientists are beginning to explore other ways plastics may contribute to climate change. Research suggests that plastics release greenhouse gases when exposed to UV radiation, which means there could be a large, underappreciated amount of climate pollution emanating from existing plastic products and litter. Marine microplastics may also be inhibiting the ocean’s ability to store carbon. And plastic particles in the air and on the Earth’s surface could be trapping heat or reflecting it — more research is needed.Holly Kaufman, a senior fellow at the nonprofit World Resources Institute, said it’s obvious that plastics are using up more than their fair share of the carbon budget, the amount of carbon dioxide the world can emit without surpassing 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius (2.7 or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming. Plastics have “a major climate impact that has just not been incorporated anywhere,” she said — including the U.N.’s plastics treaty. In the U.S., companies that want to discharge wastewater or stormwater into public waterways have to get a special kind of permit from their state’s environmental protection agency, or the federal EPA. The permit describes the types and amounts of pollutants that are allowed to be released, and anything not included on this list may be considered a violation of the federal Clean Water Act. That formed the basis of PennEnvironment and Three Rivers Waterkeeper’s lawsuit: They argued that because Styropek’s permit didn’t say anything about nurdles, releasing them into Raccoon Creek was illegal. Part of the settlement agreement with Styropek, which is expected to be approved by the federal court for Western Pennsylvania, gives the company three years to eliminate nurdles from its stormwater outfalls, and up to two years to eliminate them from its wastewater outfalls. Should Styropek sell its facility to another company, those requirements will still apply — a crucial detail, since the company began winding down production at its Monaca facility earlier this year and reportedly plans to shut down completely in early 2026. While the facility idles, the consent decree only applies to its stormwater; the wastewater requirements will kick in if the facility resumes production.   Styropek declined to be interviewed for this story and instead sent a statement noting that it is “firmly committed to upholding the highest standards of safety, health, environmental protection, quality, and sustainability.” There are many ways of cleaning up stormwater and wastewater, and Styropek has already begun trialing a number of technologies, including “turbidity curtains” to trap suspended plastic in its wastewater lagoons and an iron coagulant to aggregate smaller plastic particles into larger ones. But different technology is required to know whether those interventions are actually working. Styropek’s settlement requires it to install monitoring tools that can detect nurdles down to the individual particle, and the company will incur a fine for each inspection where one is detected. For stormwater discharge, fines will increase if more than 10 pellets are detected. Until recently, this technology didn’t exist, at least not at an industrial scale. But a similar settlement that an environmental group and private citizen reached six years ago with the Taiwanese company Formosa Plastics, whose Port Lavaca, Texas, facility was caught releasing tens of millions of nurdles into the Gulf of Mexico, set a helpful precedent. The settlement required the facility to install novel technology to its wastewater outflows, capable of detecting not only nurdles and other microplastics but also plastic powder.  Aiza José-Sánchez, president of the company Aizaco Environmental Engineering, designed that technology. She declined to say whether she’s been approached about the Styropek settlement, but she told Grist she’s made significant updates to her equipment with an eye toward installing it at other plastics facilities.  With Formosa, Aizaco’s monitoring system is installed above an underground wastewater pipeline roughly 2 miles away from the actual plastic production facility. This is so independent auditors can access it without having to enter the facility. Aizaco disinterred part of the underground pipe and connected it to a series of detectors, which could flag samples of water that might contain plastics. One of them sensed if the water was suspiciously turbid, or cloudy. Another used filters to catch particles above a certain size, and workers onsite were also keeping watch for signs of plastic contamination. Flagged samples would be tested using chromatography, a technique that separates dissolved substances out of a mixture, to confirm whether their pollutants really were plastic. Aizaco designed tools to detect nurdles in companies’ outflows. Courtesy of Aizaco An Aizaco employee holds a nurdle detected by the company’s technology. Courtesy of Aizaco The system works “100 percent of the time,” José-Sánchez said. Every inspection — meaning at least three times a week, per Formosa’s consent decree — has turned up plastic pollution, she told Grist. Her company’s testing has resulted in millions of dollars of fines for Formosa. Masur, with PennEnvironment, said the requirement of monitoring technology — supported by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection — was what made their settlement agreement such a “landmark,” more so than the $2.6 million penalty. He said he’s hoping to reinforce the precedent set in the Formosa case, which proved that it’s possible for plastic producers to set a goal of “no plastic discharges,” and then monitor their own facilities to see if they’re achieving it. “We wanted this to be the standard under the Clean Water Act,” said Matthew Dononhue, a senior attorney at the nonprofit National Environmental Law Center, who led the complaint against Styropek.  Donohue and Masur said they couldn’t divulge whether other environmental groups were looking into their own lawsuits to demand continuous monitoring at plastics facilities. But they offered another potential path forward. Facilities with water pollution permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System have to renew their permits every five years — and when they do, the public gets a chance to give input. If enough people advocated for it, state environmental protection agencies or the federal EPA could revise facilities’ permits to include a monitoring requirement.  “As the facilities in our state have their permits come up for a renewal, we should just be taking this and dropping it right in,” Masur said. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline This Pennsylvania settlement could set the standard for preventing tiny plastic pellet pollution on Sep 16, 2025.

Conservationists Fight to Save Nigeria's Sea Turtles From Pollution and Poachers

By Sodiq Adelakun and Ben EzeamaluLAGOS (Reuters) -Plastic pollution, discarded fishing nets and coastal development are taking a heavy toll on...

By Sodiq Adelakun and Ben EzeamaluLAGOS (Reuters) -Plastic pollution, discarded fishing nets and coastal development are taking a heavy toll on Nigeria's sea turtles, say conservationists battling to save them."We're seeing a drastic decline," said Chinedu Mogbo, founder of the Greenfingers Wildlife Conservation Initiative, which has rescued and released more than 70 turtles over the last five years after treating them at its turtle sanctuary.At least five endangered or threatened sea turtle species inhabit Nigeria's waters, but exact numbers are not known and resources for monitoring are inadequate, Mogbo said. His team has rescued Olive Ridley, Hawksbill and Leatherback turtles.Mostly self-funded, Mogbo's group has been working with local fishermen to save the animals."Fishers need income. We offer net repair kits in exchange for rescued turtles or protected nests," he told Reuters at the group's turtle sanctuary in the coastal city of Lagos, Nigeria's commercial capital.But with no marine protected areas and shrinking nesting grounds, the coastline has become a trap for turtles, Mogbo said, calling for state authorities to do more to protect them.Nigeria's environmental agency did not respond to requests for comment.An additional threat to sea turtles comes from brisk demand for their meat, shells and eggs in Nigeria, both for consumption and traditional ritual uses."We eat their eggs and sometimes give them to the village elders for voodoo," said Morifat Hassan, who sells fish in the coastal area of Folu on the outskirts of Lagos. Sea turtles fetch up to 90,000 naira ($60) each, Hassan said.In July, rescuers saved a huge green turtle in the Folu area that was injured after getting tangled in a fishing net. They have named him Moruf.After negotiating with the fishermen who found Moruf, Mogbo was able to fend off people trying to buy the injured turtle."Normally, this turtle would be butchered or sold, but we intervened and will ensure it is returned safely to the sea," Mogbo said as he stood on the shoreline.(Writing by Ben Ezeamalu;Additional Reporting by Kazeem Sanni;Editing by Helen Popper)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

‘It’s dying in front of our eyes’: how the UK’s largest lake became an ecological disaster

Signs tout a natural paradise, but pollution from over-farming has left Northern Ireland’s Lough Neagh choked by toxic algaeThe bright, cheery signs dot the shoreline like epistles from another era, a time before the calamity.“Ballyronan marina is a picturesque boating and tourist facility on the shores of Lough Neagh,” says one. “Contours of its historical past embrace the virginal shoreline.” Continue reading...

The bright, cheery signs dot the shoreline like epistles from another era, a time before the calamity.“Ballyronan marina is a picturesque boating and tourist facility on the shores of Lough Neagh,” says one. “Contours of its historical past embrace the virginal shoreline.”Another sign boasts that the “rich ecological diversity and abundance of salmon and eels” has sustained communities there for thousands of years, since the stone age.A roadside billboard declares the Lough Neagh Fishermen’s Cooperative Society to be Europe’s biggest producer of wild eels. Yet another sign tells visitors that this majestic landscape of water and sky inspired Seamus Heaney’s Nobel-winning poetry.People feed ducks and sea gulls on the algae-covered shores of the lake. Photograph: Paul Faith/AFP/Getty ImagesBeauty, ecology, heritage, tourism, fishing – the UK’s biggest lake, sitting in the heart of Northern Ireland, had bragging rights to fill a hundred signs. But now they line the shoreline as testaments to hubris because of an environmental disaster.The 400 sq km (150 sq mile) freshwater lough is choking on recurring toxic algal blooms that coat the surface, kill wildlife, unleash stenches and make the lake all but unusable. Eel fishing has been suspended and tourists have fled.The lough and surrounding watercourses are on course to record their worst year, with at least 171 detections of cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) growths, according to a government pollution tracker. The algae’s return was a “distressing but timely reminder of the need to urgently turn the tide on the ecological crisis”, Northern Ireland’s environment minister, Andrew Muir, said in a statement.The algae on Lough Neagh forms patterns and swirls said to be reminiscent of works by Gustav Klimt. Photograph: Paul Faith/AFP/Getty ImagesThe main cause is an overload of phosphorus and nitrogen from agriculture, including farm runoff, fertilisers and animal waste. Inadequate wastewater treatment facilities and septic tank leakage aggravate the problems. Additional factors are sand extraction, warming water and proliferating zebra mussels, an invasive species.The Stormont executive agreed a rescue plan last year but has balked at reining in polluters, prompting condemnation from Claire Hanna, leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party: “Lough Neagh is dying in front of our eyes. Images of fish and eels gasping for life on the surface are not just shocking – they are a stark warning of total ecological collapse.”This week an activist, Bea Shrewsbury, attempted to present a “Lough Neagh smoothie”, drawn from the lake, to assembly members at Stormont. Police escorted her away.The lough supplies 40% of Northern Ireland’s drinking water, which is treated and said to be safe. Not everyone is convinced. “I’ve not drunk from the tap in a year,” said Brigid Laverty, 67, who lives by the lake. This week the Food Standards Agency said toxins have been found in the flesh of some fish for the first time but that commercially harvested fish remained safe to eat.A sign by Lough Neagh extols the lake’s history and ecology. Photograph: Rory Carroll/The GuardianThe water should be light brown but has turned green, said Peter Harper, an environmental officer with the Lough Neagh Partnership, a nonprofit group. In some places the sludge – so widespread it is visible from space – forms mosaic-type patterns and swirls redolent of Gustav Klimt, said Harper. “It can be weirdly beautiful.”The impact on wildlife is incalculable, making the tourism-themed shoreline signs a grim joke. “What lies beneath?” says one. “A world of ancient history and astounding myths is waiting just below the surface. What unique creatures have made the lough their home?”skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionAnother sign exhorts visitors: “This special place deserves respect … please keep dogs on leads.” It urges swimmers to be careful because conditions can change fast. But there are no swimmers, and virtually no boats, because there is no demand and algae clogs engines.A buildup of algae at Toome lock at the north end of Lough Neagh. Photograph: Rory Carroll/The GuardianA more recent sign, tacked to a lamp-post at Ballyronan marina, is more up to date: “Spotted a dead wild bird? Use the DAERA dead wild bird reporting tool service if you find dead gulls, waders, ducks or swans.”DAERA is the department of agriculture, environment and rural affairs – a bureaucracy that critics say prioritised the farms and agrifood companies that expanded pig, chicken and cattle numbers in the past decade and overloaded the soil’s ability to absorb nutrients. They did so with official blessing in a “going for growth” strategy.“It was not thought through,” said Gerry Darby, the manager of the Lough Neagh Partnership. “I’ll put it another way. The guy who did the calculations about nutrient levels knew fuck all about fuck all.”Gerry Darby of the Lough Neagh Partnership. He said the lake could die unless action is taken to clean it up. Photograph: Rory Carroll/The GuardianMuir, of the Alliance party, said his department had completed or made good progress on most of the 37 points in an action plan agreed last year, but said Stormont faced “difficult decisions” over key measures. Sinn Féin and the Democratic Unionist party, who dominate the executive, appear to have stalled the nutrients action programme over fears of a farmer backlash.Darby said there was no magical solution, only trade-offs, but still expressed confidence that politicians would take the necessary measures. “The lake is not dead,” he said. “It could be dead if things continue as they are.”

US pollution measurement practices raise questions about reliability of data

Guardian analysis heightens concerns on whether the air around many large factories is, or will be, safe to breatheA Guardian analysis has raised fresh questions over the way regulators and corporations measure the air quality impact of planned factories that risk emitting dangerous levels of pollution.Between 2014 and 2024, air pollution permit applications in Michigan – designed to gauge if proposed industrial projects would cause regions to violate federal pollution limits – did not meet data collection rules or best practices over 90% of the time. Some measurements were taken more than a hundred miles away from sites. Continue reading...

A Guardian analysis has raised fresh questions over the way regulators and corporations measure the air quality impact of planned factories that risk emitting dangerous levels of pollution.Between 2014 and 2024, air pollution permit applications in Michigan – designed to gauge if proposed industrial projects would cause regions to violate federal pollution limits – did not meet data collection rules or best practices over 90% of the time. Some measurements were taken more than a hundred miles away from sites.The findings are likely to heighten concerns around whether the air around many large factories is, or will be, safe to breathe. Public health advocates and environmental attorneys have long claimed readings are manipulated in a bid to push through planned sites – and warned that practices uncovered in Michigan were not unique. The safety of air around many of the nation’s factories is similarly unclear.Among the facilities is a Stellantis auto plant in Sterling Heights, Michigan, a large Detroit suburb. In 2016, Michigan environmental regulators approved a permit application allowing then-FCA Chrysler to increase particulate matter emissions.The projected level of new particulate matter combined with current levels around the plant would not violate federal limits, FCA claimed: the air would remain safe.But the air monitor FCA used to arrive at that conclusion was 17 miles to the north in New Haven, a largely rural community with cleaner air than Sterling Heights. FCA and regulators ignored two closer monitors in urban areas with dirtier airsheds that more closely matched that of Sterling Heights. Per Clean Air Act best practices, FCA should have installed an air monitor at its plant to determine the levels.It did not. No one knows how much dangerous particulate matter hangs in the region around the Sterling Heights plant. Stellantis did not respond to a request for comment.“It’s an abuse to say ‘Oh yeah, that’s good enough,’ because you didn’t look,” said Seth Johnson, an attorney with the Earthjustice non-profit who has litigated on permitting issues. “If you don’t care about what people in an area are breathing then you don’t want to look.”In some cases, air quality data is used from monitors hundreds of miles away. In other instances, no data is collected when the law requires it to be. Sometimes companies ignore nearby monitors and use data from a monitor further away, where the air is cleaner, as FCA did.The types of facilities that apply for permits include major polluters like power plants, auto factories and other heavy industry sites. When the Swedish paper giant Billerud wanted to expand its Escanaba, Michigan, mill in 2023, it used readings for nitrogen dioxide from a monitor about 150 miles south-east, in Houghton Lake, Michigan. Its particulate matter readings came from monitors about 130 miles west in Potawatomi, Wisconsin.The Lansing Board of Water and Light, meanwhile, relied on carbon monoxide data from a monitor in Grand Rapids, about 68 miles away, when it wanted to expand a power plant.Neither monitored onsite for the pollutants. Billerud and Lansing Board of Water did not respond to requests for comment.The Michigan department of environment, Great Lakes and energy (EGLE) said the agency “does not deliberately choose a monitor” that makes it appear as if pollution levels are lower than they are. Using the Billerud example, a spokesperson said the airsheds in Houghton and Potawatomi were similar enough to Escanaba to draw conclusions about the safety of the air in Escanaba.“In this case and many others like it, using monitors farther away is a better and more conservative way to evaluate an applicant’s request,” an EGLE spokesperson, Josef Greenberg, said in a statement.However, Potawatomi is in a state forest, and Houghton is similarly more rural in character than Escanaba. That prompts questions about the accuracy of EGLE’s claim, said Nick Leonard, a lawyer with the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, which has sued Michigan regulators over some permit approvals. Such scenarios should trigger onsite monitoring, he said.“You’d think it’s a technocratic process, but it’s not,” Leonard said. “Companies seeking a permit more or less tell EGLE what data they want to use, and EGLE rubber-stamps it every time. They never do a meaningful assessment of the data, and they never require permit applicants to do onsite monitoring even though that is an option under the Clean Air Act and encouraged by EPA [the Environmental Protection Agency].”‘Real impacts on real people’The Guardian obtained major Michigan air pollution permit applications for 2014 to 2024 via Freedom of Information Act (Foia) requests. The permit applications were submitted during the administrations of the former Republican governor Rick Snyder and the current Democratic governor, Gretchen Whitmer.The Clean Air Act states companies must obtain a permit to emit air pollutants covered by National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), such as particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide.The EPA sets limits for the pollutants, which are linked to lung disease, cancer and a range of other health problems. The Clean Air Act also states that permit applicants must demonstrate that “emissions from construction or operation of such a facility will not cause, or contribute to, air pollution in excess of any” NAAQS limit.Best practices state that applicants should demonstrate their projects will not violate limits by adding local air monitors’ ambient pollution levels to their projected emissions. State environmental regulators most often handle the permit requests.EPA rules and best practices around air monitors call for state agencies to require companies to use data from a monitor within about six miles. If a monitor is not available, a “regional” monitor further away can be used, but conditions in the two locations’ airsheds should be similar.That option should be used sparingly, the best practices state. If no comparable air monitors are available, then a company should install a monitor onsite and check the air for a year.That virtually never happens in Michigan or elsewhere, said Michael Koerber, a retired deputy director of the EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, which worked with EGLE and other states on air permitting. “Do projects generally do that? I can’t think of too many that really did,” he added.EGLE said in a statement it rarely required onsite monitoring, but noted that it regularly consulted with the EPA on the decisions, and the EPA also has not felt that onsite monitoring was required.If a company’s projected emissions violate the NAAQS limits, they could be required to take any number of steps, like putting in better pollution controls, or reducing pollution at a different facility. But that rarely happens, public health advocates say.“It’s easy to get lost in the arcane details of all of this, but at the end of the day we’re talking about pollution that is really bad for people. And it has real impacts on real people,” Johnson said.‘Business as usual’The air in south-west Detroit near Zug Island is among the dirtiest in the nation, filled with pollutants from steelmakers, automakers and others who operate factories in the dense industrial zone.By 2023, the level of toxic particulate matter there was on the brink of violating federal air quality limits, and the concrete producer Edward C Levy Co applied to add more from a proposed slag grinding facility.The problem: the particulate matter that Levy’s facility would emit would cause the region to be in violation of federal limits for the pollutant, data from the application and a state air quality monitor positioned about 0.65 miles from the site showed.Still, the state approved the permit in late 2023. It and Levy ignored data from the nearby monitor, instead using readings from a monitor six miles away in Allen Park, where the air is cleaner. That made it appear as if Levy would not cause a violation.EGLE’s decision was “business as usual”, said Theresa Landrum, who lives in south-west Detroit. The firm’s founder, Edward Levy, is politically connected and a prolific campaign donor, and EGLE, “doesn’t seem that EGLE is working on behalf of the people”, Landrum said. Levy did not respond to a request for comment.EGLE at the time defended its decision, claiming it used modeling to show there would not be a violation. Leonard’s law firm has sued, and the case is currently in a state appeals court after a lower court judge ruled there was no violation.Leonard said he had never seen the EPA or EGLE show data to support its decisions, and their approach varies from permit to permit.“Sometimes they use the closest monitor, sometimes not,” he said. “Sometimes they use a monitor from an area that typically has high levels of air pollution, sometimes not. Sometimes they use a monitor upwind of the facility, sometimes they use one that is downwind.“The lack of criteria and variability from permit to permit makes this fertile ground for manipulation.”Leonard pointed to a 2018 application to increase sulfur dioxide emissions at the Arbor Hills landfill in Northville Township, a suburb at the western edge of Detroit’s metro area. It pulled air quality data from Allen Park, about 22 miles away. EGLE approved the permit.Leonard said EGLE in part justified the use of the Allen Park monitor because it classified the new project as a “single source” of pollution, or in effect the only major source of air emissions in the area. But EPA records show 164 other companies in a 10-mile radius have such high emission levels that they must report to the EPA.Currently, no one knows if the pollution from Arbor Hills’ expansion combined with the pollution from the other major sources has made Northville Township’s air unsafe.Leonard said he had pushed EGLE to do more onsite monitoring. “They look at me like I’m crazy if I even suggest it,” he claimed.Arbor Hills Energy LLC, the landfill’s former owner, and Opal Fuels its current owner, did not respond to requests for comment.The EPAThe blame lies with the EPA and state regulators, advocates say. The EPA “doesn’t like” the pre-construction monitoring and data requirements, and “has fought against it for 40 years”, Johnson of Earthjustice, said.The EPA did not respond to a request for comment.The agency in the late 1970s issued a rule under the Clean Air Act that did not require companies to provide air quality monitoring data to show their project would not violate federal limits. Earthjustice and Sierra Club sued, arguing the law explicitly called for data, and in 2013 a federal court agreed.But the EPA did not begin requiring meaningful data, Johnson added. Instead, it started “doing this run around” in which it allowed existing data to be pulled from monitors up to hundreds of miles away that often does not provide a clear picture of air pollution around the proposed facilities.The law, however, is less clear about how companies must demonstrate compliance with the limits. State agencies, with EPA approval, are essentially exploiting those gray areas or non-enforceable best practices, Johnson said.Michigan could do more, too, Leonard said. Whitmer has promoted herself as an environmental justice (EJ) leader, taking steps such as creating state panels that advise on such issues. But when it comes to decisions that will truly protect communities, like permitting, she typically puts the industry’s needs first, according to Leonard.That hasn’t gone unnoticed in south-west Detroit, Landrum said: “Whitmer hasn’t stepped out on EJ issues. She puts corporate profits over people.”Whitmer’s office did not respond to a request for comment.‘A matter of priorities’In Monroe, Michigan, the Gerdau Steel plant is spitting high levels of nitrogen dioxide into the air. In an apparent direct violation of the Clean Air Act, no data was provided to determine if it violated the NAAQS.Gerdau Steel did not respond to a request for comment.Public health advocates say it doesn’t need to be this way. Part of the problem is the low number of air quality monitors. Michigan has in place just 30 PM2.5 monitors to cover its approximately 97,000 sq miles, making it rare for a monitor to be within six miles of a proposed project.Though the 2021 Inflation Reduction Act provided funding for air quality monitors, Michigan didn’t expand its network. Johnson said advances in satellite and mobile air monitoring could make it easier to gather data around a facility.EGLE in its statement said onsite monitoring was costly and time intensive. But former EPA official Koerber noted the projects often take years to plan, so monitoring onsite for a year is a relatively inexpensive and easy step for companies to take. He also said firms could do post-construction monitoring, so the public knows for sure whether there is a problem.The fixes aren’t that difficult, according to Johnson. It’s “just a matter of priorities”, he said. “People have the right to know what they’re breathing and what they’re going to breathe in the future. To deprive people of that right is anti-democratic.”

New Mexico sues US air force over Pfas pollution from military base

High levels of Pfas stemming from the base have tainted water, damaged crops and poisoned cows in the areaThe state of New Mexico is suing the US air force over its refusal to comply with orders to address extremely high levels of Pfas pollution stemming from its base, which has tainted drinking water for tens of thousands of people, damaged crops and poisoned dairy cows.Though the military acknowledges Pfas-laden firefighting foam from Cannon air force base is the source of a four mile chemical plume in the aquifer below Clovis, New Mexico, it has refused to comply with most state orders to address the issue. Continue reading...

The state of New Mexico is suing the US air force over its refusal to comply with orders to address extremely high levels of Pfas pollution stemming from its base, which has tainted drinking water for tens of thousands of people, damaged crops and poisoned dairy cows.Though the military acknowledges Pfas-laden firefighting foam from Cannon air force base is the source of a four mile chemical plume in the aquifer below Clovis, New Mexico, it has refused to comply with most state orders to address the issue.The new lawsuit filed by the state’s justice and environmental departments is the latest salvo in the seven-year battle over the pollution, and comes after changes to state law that strengthened New Mexico’s legal position.The air force’s inaction has forced state taxpayers to shoulder the cost, and the plume has “become a ward of the state”, said James Kenney, secretary of the New Mexico environment department.“They’ve managed to litigate against the state, they’ve allowed the plume to go unchecked, and in the mind of the state and much of the community, they’ve done nothing of substance,” Kenney added.Pfas are a class of about 15,000 compounds most frequently used to make products water-, stain- and grease-resistant. They have been linked to cancer, birth defects, decreased immunity, high cholesterol, kidney disease and a range of other serious health problems. They are dubbed “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down in the environment.Pfas are a common ingredient in firefighting foam, and the military is in the process of phasing it out because the highly toxic substance has widely contaminated water and the environment around over 700 bases nationwide.In 2018, Cannon’s Pfas was found to have poisoned drinking water for over 100 private wells, and has so far taken out one municipal well that serves Clovis, a city of 40,000 people. Levels found in surface water were about 27,000 times higher than US Environmental Protection Agency drinking water limits.The pollution also continues to contaminate thousands of acres of crops that rely on the aquifer for water, raising questions about the safety of those products. Local dairy farmers in 2018 were forced to euthanize about 3,500 cows that had contaminated milk.In August, another 7,000 gallons of Pfas-contaminated wastewater leaked from an air force pond into groundwater, but the air force has refused to pay a $70,000 state fine.The air force in a statement told the Guardian it does not comment on active litigation.In 2019, New Mexico issued a corrective action permit that stipulated how it should remediate the plume. The air force then sued New Mexico in federal court, alleging that the Pfas foam is not a hazardous substance, and the state lacked the authority to make the order. That awaits an opinion from a federal court.The New Mexico legislature designated the Pfas-laden foam as a hazardous substance under state law in response. The new suit, in state court, asks a judge to order the air force to provide water treatment systems to affected residents, or connect those whose wells are contaminated to municipal sources. It also calls for pollution controls around the base and compensation for those whose property has been affected, among other measures.The nation’s hazardous waste laws allow states to establish requirements for substances like Pfas and firefighting foam. The US Department of Justice and the air force’s refusal to clean up the waste is essentially “flipping the bird” at US law, Kenney said.The air force has provided filtration systems for some homes with the highest levels of Pfas, but it has not maintained the systems, nor has it provided any for agriculture. The military has not gone far enough, Kenney said.“If they contaminated people’s drinking and agricultural water … and they’re litigating instead of remediating, then we can’t sit back and say they’re doing the right thing,” Kenney added.Cannon is not isolated, and the air force has received criticism for slow responses to pollution around the country. After years of resisting orders to address Pfas from a base in Tucson, Arizona, that threatened the city’s drinking water, the air force late last year agreed to fund new filtration systems.Congress has made around $3bn of funding available annually for Pfas remediation at military bases, but the air force often still “slow rolls” the work, said Jared Hayes, senior policy analyst with the Environmental Working Group nonprofit, which tracks military Pfas pollution. He noted the air force’s remedial investigation of the New Mexico plume is not due until the end of 2026.“We’ve seen similar situations across the country where the air force is generally dragging its feet when it comes to cleaning up Pfas pollution,” Hayes said. “Communities in New Hampshire, Michigan, Arizona, New Mexico are waiting and waiting for cleanup, but it’s still a long way off.”

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.